Poverty in Nottingham

The economics of rejected warrant articles and rejected operating budgets.

Many people were surprised that Nottingham’s voters rejected so many warrant articles for spending - most particularly with regard to the proposed operating budgets for both the town and the school. 

Rejecting the town budget saved taxpayers about $0.35 per $1,000. Rejecting the school budget saved about $0.21 per $1,000. For a home with an assessed value of $300k, this represents about $105 for the town and $63 for the school. 

As Selectman Shirland noted, the voters need to be informed that the town cannot run on the default budget. While the Board of Selectmen has since crafted a new budget that meets the default budget’s limits, part of how they did it was by tapping ARPA funds. Another part is that the board will be newly vigilant about spending, with a new agenda item each month to review each department’s spending. 

Why, some have asked, should the town be thrown into such budgeting turmoil over such small amounts of money per household? 

To address this question, a prior issue of the Nottingham Blog drew attention to the large number of taxpayers who were behind on their tax payments as a source of insight on that question. 

This issue of the Nottingham Blog will drill deeper into the voters’ difficulties in affording more taxes. 

An earlier Nottingham Blog article addressed food insecurity in town. This article showed that 32 families in Nottingham qualify for food distributions provided by the federal government and distributed by the Nottingham Food Pantry according to these guidelines:

These guidelines are just barely more generous than the tax exemption income levels Nottingham provides to low-income disabled and elderly residents of $38k for individuals and $48k for married couples. That exemption is for $101k of assessed value. For someone who qualifies for this exemption who has a property assessed at $201k, the difference for them between the proposed and default budgets would be $35 for the town budget and $21 for the school budget. 

Nottingham School has 37 students who receive free lunches, and 7 who receive reduced-price lunches. Enrollment is 515. Thus 8.5% of the students are eligible due to poverty. Free school lunches are available to families with incomes less than 130% of the poverty level, and reduced-price lunches are available to families at less than 180%. For example, a single parent with one child would qualify for free lunches with an income below $25,572. 

The 2020 Census data show that poverty in Nottingham is higher than in other towns in Rockingham County. 

The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute said, “Estimates of the cost of living are far above official poverty thresholds in every New Hampshire county. Individuals and families who are living with the very low income levels represented by the poverty thresholds are likely forgoing many goods and services, such as food, that other households consider necessary parts of their budgets.”

The New Hampshire Bulletin said, “Based on 2024 cost-of-living estimates independently compiled by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Economic Policy Institute, basic family budgeted expenses would range from about $87,500 to $131,200 for a household with two adults and two children, depending on the county in New Hampshire.”

The 2020 Census said that the median household income in Nottingham is $96,047. Based on that figure and the cost-of-living estimate, about half of the households in Nottingham have concerns about meeting basic expenses. 

Slightly more than half of Nottingham’s voters said no to town and school operating budget increases.

Why did this happen?

Those who follow town politics on Facebook will see the usual ideologically motivated rhetorical wrangling between the “tax and spend” crowd and the “selfish non-contributing” crowd. 

For those who view elections through an ideological lens, the results of the 2024 town election are incoherent. On the operating budgets and other warrant articles, voters were even more anti-tax than the most ideologically anti-tax members of the Budget Committee, yet the voters did not re-elect these anti-tax incumbents. Something other than ideology appears to have shifted. 

The economy appears to have shifted. 

Inflation has been high. Many families’ incomes have failed to keep up with inflation. The election results appear to indicate that the economic scales have been tipped. Money has become tight. People are economizing. Service levels the taxpayers were willing to pay for a year or two ago, the taxpayers feel they can no longer afford.